Despite the rising popularity of saliency-based explanations, the research community remains at an impasse, facing doubts concerning their purpose, efficacy, and tendency to contradict each other. Seeking to unite the community’s efforts around common goals, several recent works have proposed evaluation metrics. In this paper, we critically examine two sets of metrics: the ERASER metrics (comprehensiveness and sufficiency) and the EVAL-X metrics, focusing our inquiry on natural language processing. First, we show that we can inflate a model’s comprehensiveness and sufficiency scores dramatically without altering its predictions or explanations on in-distribution test inputs. Our strategy exploits the tendency for extracted explanations and their complements to be “out-of-support” relative to each other and in-distribution inputs. Next, we demonstrate that the EVAL-X metrics can be inflated arbitrarily by a simple method that encodes the label, even though EVAL-X is precisely motivated to address such exploits. Our results raise doubts about the ability of current metrics to guide explainability research, underscoring the need for a broader reassessment of what precisely these metrics are intended to capture.

The extraction of structured data from websites is critical for numerous Artificial Intelligence applications, but modern web design increasingly stores information visually in images rather than in text. This shift calls into question the optimal technique, as language-only models fail without textual cues while new multimodal models like GPT-4 promise image understanding abilities. We conduct the first rigorous comparison between text-based and vision-based models for extracting event metadata harvested from comic convention websites. Surprisingly, our results between GPT-4 Vision and GPT-4 Text uncover a significant accuracy advantage for vision-based methods in an applies-to-apples setting, indicating that vision models may be outpacing language-alone techniques in the task of information extraction from websites. We release our dataset and provide a qualitative analysis to guide further research in multi-modal models for web information extraction.

Recent work has shown that large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating summaries zero-shot—i.e., without explicit supervision—that, under human assessment, are often comparable or even preferred to manually composed reference summaries. However, this prior work has focussed almost exclusively on evaluating news article summarization. How do zero-shot summarizers perform in other (potentially more specialized) domains?In this work we evaluate zero-shot generated summaries across specialized domains including: biomedical articles, and legal bills (in addition to standard news benchmarks for reference). We focus especially on the factuality of outputs. We acquire annotations from domain experts to identify inconsistencies in summaries and systematically categorize these errors. We analyze whether the prevalence of a given domain in the pretraining corpus affects extractiveness and faithfulness of generated summaries of articles in this domain. We release all collected annotations to facilitate additional research toward measuring and realizing factually accurate summarization, beyond news articles (The dataset can be downloaded from https://anonymous.4open.science/r/zero_shot_faceval_domains-9B83)

While the NLP community has produced numerous summarization benchmarks, none provide the rich annotations required to simultaneously address many important problems related to control and reliability. We introduce a Wikipedia-derived benchmark, complemented by a rich set of crowd-sourced annotations, that supports 8 interrelated tasks: (i) extractive summarization; (ii) abstractive summarization; (iii) topic-based summarization; (iv) compressing selected sentences into a one-line summary; (v) surfacing evidence for a summary sentence; (vi) predicting the factual accuracy of a summary sentence; (vii) identifying unsubstantiated spans in a summary sentence; (viii) correcting factual errors in summaries. We compare various methods on this benchmark and discover that on multiple tasks, moderately-sized fine-tuned models consistently outperform much larger few-shot prompted language models. For factuality-related tasks, we also evaluate existing heuristics to create training data and find that training on them results in worse performance than training on 20× less human-labeled data. Our articles draw from 6 domains, facilitating cross-domain analysis. On some tasks, the amount of training data matters more than the domain where it comes from, while for other tasks training specifically on data from the target domain, even if limited, is more beneficial.

In recent years, NLP practitioners have converged on the following practice: (i) import an off-the-shelf pretrained (masked) language model; (ii) append a multilayer perceptron atop the CLS token’s hidden representation (with randomly initialized weights); and (iii) fine-tune the entire model on a downstream task (MLP-FT). This procedure has produced massive gains on standard NLP benchmarks, but these models remain brittle, even to mild adversarial perturbations. In this work, we demonstrate surprising gains in adversarial robustness enjoyed by Model-tuning Via Prompts (MVP), an alternative method of adapting to downstream tasks. Rather than appending an MLP head to make output prediction, MVP appends a prompt template to the input, and makes prediction via text infilling/completion. Across 5 NLP datasets, 4 adversarial attacks, and 3 different models, MVP improves performance against adversarial substitutions by an average of 8% over standard methods and even outperforms adversarial training-based state-of-art defenses by 3.5%. By combining MVP with adversarial training, we achieve further improvements in adversarial robustness while maintaining performance on unperturbed examples. Finally, we conduct ablations to investigate the mechanism underlying these gains. Notably, we find that the main causes of vulnerability of MLP-FT can be attributed to the misalignment between pre-training and fine-tuning tasks, and the randomly initialized MLP parameters.

For most natural language processing tasks, the dominant practice is to finetune large pretrained transformer models (e.g., BERT) using smaller downstream datasets. Despite the success of this approach, it remains unclear to what extent these gainsare attributable to the massive background corpora employed for pretraining versus to the pretraining objectives themselves. This paper introduces a large-scale study of self-pretraining, where the same (downstream) training data is used for both pretraining and finetuning.In experiments addressing both ELECTRA and RoBERTa models and 10 distinct downstream classification datasets, we observe that self-pretraining rivals standard pretraining on the BookWiki corpus (despite using around 10x–500x less data), outperforming the latter on 7 and 5 datasets, respectively. Surprisingly, these task-specific pretrained models often perform well on other tasks,including the GLUE benchmark. Besides classification tasks, self-pretraining also provides benefits on structured output prediction tasks such as span based question answering and commonsense inference, often providing more than 50% of the performance boosts provided by pretraining on the BookWiki corpus. Our results hint that in many scenarios, performance gains attributable to pretraining are driven primarily by the pretraining objective itself and are not always attributable to the use of external pretraining data in massive amounts. These findings are especially relevant in light of concerns about intellectual property and offensive content in web-scale pretraining data.

While many methods purport to explain predictions by highlighting salient features, what aims these explanations serve and how they ought to be evaluated often go unstated. In this work, we introduce a framework to quantify the value of explanations via the accuracy gains that they confer on a student model trained to simulate a teacher model. Crucially, the explanations are available to the student during training, but are not available at test time. Compared with prior proposals, our approach is less easily gamed, enabling principled, automatic, model-agnostic evaluation of attributions. Using our framework, we compare numerous attribution methods for text classification and question answering, and observe quantitative differences that are consistent (to a moderate to high degree) across different student model architectures and learning strategies.1

In attempts to develop sample-efficient and interpretable algorithms, researcher have explored myriad mechanisms for collecting and exploiting feature feedback, auxiliary annotations provided for training (but not test) instances that highlight salient evidence. Examples include bounding boxes around objects and salient spans in text. Despite its intuitive appeal, feature feedback has not delivered significant gains in practical problems as assessed on iid holdout sets. However, recent works on counterfactually augmented data suggest an alternative benefit of supplemental annotations, beyond interpretability: lessening sensitivity to spurious patterns and consequently delivering gains in out-of-domain evaluations. We speculate that while existing methods for incorporating feature feedback have delivered negligible in-sample performance gains, they may nevertheless provide out-of-domain benefits. Our experiments addressing sentiment analysis, show that feature feedback methods perform significantly better on various natural out-of-domain datasets despite comparable in-domain evaluations. By contrast, performance on natural language inference remains comparable. Finally, we compare those tasks where feature feedback does (and does not) help.

Pretraining techniques leveraging enormous datasets have driven recent advances in text summarization. While folk explanations suggest that knowledge transfer accounts for pretraining’s benefits, little is known about why it works or what makes a pretraining task or dataset suitable. In this paper, we challenge the knowledge transfer story, showing that pretraining on documents consisting of character n-grams selected at random, we can nearly match the performance of models pretrained on real corpora. This work holds the promise of eliminating upstream corpora, which may alleviate some concerns over offensive language, bias, and copyright issues. To see whether the small residual benefit of using real data could be accounted for by the structure of the pretraining task, we design several tasks motivated by a qualitative study of summarization corpora. However, these tasks confer no appreciable benefit, leaving open the possibility of a small role for knowledge transfer.

Unsupervised Data Augmentation (UDA) is a semisupervised technique that applies a consistency loss to penalize differences between a model’s predictions on (a) observed (unlabeled) examples; and (b) corresponding ‘noised’ examples produced via data augmentation. While UDA has gained popularity for text classification, open questions linger over which design decisions are necessary and how to extend the method to sequence labeling tasks. In this paper, we re-examine UDA and demonstrate its efficacy on several sequential tasks. Our main contribution is an empirical study of UDA to establish which components of the algorithm confer benefits in NLP. Notably, although prior work has emphasized the use of clever augmentation techniques including back-translation, we find that enforcing consistency between predictions assigned to observed and randomly substituted words often yields comparable (or greater) benefits compared to these more complex perturbation models. Furthermore, we find that applying UDA’s consistency loss affords meaningful gains without any unlabeled data at all, i.e., in a standard supervised setting. In short, UDA need not be unsupervised to realize much of its noted benefits, and does not require complex data augmentation to be effective.

Following each patient visit, physicians draft long semi-structured clinical summaries called SOAP notes. While invaluable to clinicians and researchers, creating digital SOAP notes is burdensome, contributing to physician burnout. In this paper, we introduce the first complete pipelines to leverage deep summarization models to generate these notes based on transcripts of conversations between physicians and patients. After exploring a spectrum of methods across the extractive-abstractive spectrum, we propose Cluster2Sent, an algorithm that (i) extracts important utterances relevant to each summary section; (ii) clusters together related utterances; and then (iii) generates one summary sentence per cluster. Cluster2Sent outperforms its purely abstractive counterpart by 8 ROUGE-1 points, and produces significantly more factual and coherent sentences as assessed by expert human evaluators. For reproducibility, we demonstrate similar benefits on the publicly available AMI dataset. Our results speak to the benefits of structuring summaries into sections and annotating supporting evidence when constructing summarization corpora.

In adversarial data collection (ADC), a human workforce interacts with a model in real time, attempting to produce examples that elicit incorrect predictions. Researchers hope that models trained on these more challenging datasets will rely less on superficial patterns, and thus be less brittle. However, despite ADC’s intuitive appeal, it remains unclear when training on adversarial datasets produces more robust models. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale controlled study focused on question answering, assigning workers at random to compose questions either (i) adversarially (with a model in the loop); or (ii) in the standard fashion (without a model). Across a variety of models and datasets, we find that models trained on adversarial data usually perform better on other adversarial datasets but worse on a diverse collection of out-of-domain evaluation sets. Finally, we provide a qualitative analysis of adversarial (vs standard) data, identifying key differences and offering guidance for future research.

Modern multilingual models are trained on concatenated text from multiple languages in hopes of conferring benefits to each (positive transfer), with the most pronounced benefits accruing to low-resource languages. However, recent work has shown that this approach can degrade performance on high-resource languages, a phenomenon known as negative interference. In this paper, we present the first systematic study of negative interference. We show that, contrary to previous belief, negative interference also impacts low-resource languages. While parameters are maximally shared to learn language-universal structures, we demonstrate that language-specific parameters do exist in multilingual models and they are a potential cause of negative interference. Motivated by these observations, we also present a meta-learning algorithm that obtains better cross-lingual transferability and alleviates negative interference, by adding language-specific layers as meta-parameters and training them in a manner that explicitly improves shared layers’ generalization on all languages. Overall, our results show that negative interference is more common than previously known, suggesting new directions for improving multilingual representations.

For many prediction tasks, stakeholders desire not only predictions but also supporting evidence that a human can use to verify its correctness. However, in practice, evidence annotations may only be available for a minority of training examples (if available at all). In this paper, we propose new methods to combine few evidence annotations (strong semi-supervision) with abundant document-level labels (weak supervision) for the task of evidence extraction. Evaluating on two classification tasks that feature evidence annotations, we find that our methods outperform baselines adapted from the interpretability literature to our task. Our approach yields gains with as few as hundred evidence annotations.

Attention mechanisms are ubiquitous components in neural architectures applied to natural language processing. In addition to yielding gains in predictive accuracy, attention weights are often claimed to confer interpretability, purportedly useful both for providing insights to practitioners and for explaining why a model makes its decisions to stakeholders. We call the latter use of attention mechanisms into question by demonstrating a simple method for training models to produce deceptive attention masks. Our method diminishes the total weight assigned to designated impermissible tokens, even when the models can be shown to nevertheless rely on these features to drive predictions. Across multiple models and tasks, our approach manipulates attention weights while paying surprisingly little cost in accuracy. Through a human study, we show that our manipulated attention-based explanations deceive people into thinking that predictions from a model biased against gender minorities do not rely on the gender. Consequently, our results cast doubt on attention’s reliability as a tool for auditing algorithms in the context of fairness and accountability.

To combat adversarial spelling mistakes, we propose placing a word recognition model in front of the downstream classifier. Our word recognition models build upon the RNN semi-character architecture, introducing several new backoff strategies for handling rare and unseen words. Trained to recognize words corrupted by random adds, drops, swaps, and keyboard mistakes, our method achieves 32% relative (and 3.3% absolute) error reduction over the vanilla semi-character model. Notably, our pipeline confers robustness on the downstream classifier, outperforming both adversarial training and off-the-shelf spell checkers. Against a BERT model fine-tuned for sentiment analysis, a single adversarially-chosen character attack lowers accuracy from 90.3% to 45.8%. Our defense restores accuracy to 75%. Surprisingly, better word recognition does not always entail greater robustness. Our analysis reveals that robustness also depends upon a quantity that we denote the sensitivity.

Active learning (AL) is a widely-used training strategy for maximizing predictive performance subject to a fixed annotation budget. In AL, one iteratively selects training examples for annotation, often those for which the current model is most uncertain (by some measure). The hope is that active sampling leads to better performance than would be achieved under independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random samples. While AL has shown promise in retrospective evaluations, these studies often ignore practical obstacles to its use. In this paper, we show that while AL may provide benefits when used with specific models and for particular domains, the benefits of current approaches do not generalize reliably across models and tasks. This is problematic because in practice, one does not have the opportunity to explore and compare alternative AL strategies. Moreover, AL couples the training dataset with the model used to guide its acquisition. We find that subsequently training a successor model with an actively-acquired dataset does not consistently outperform training on i.i.d. sampled data. Our findings raise the question of whether the downsides inherent to AL are worth the modest and inconsistent performance gains it tends to afford.

Although over 100 languages are supported by strong off-the-shelf machine translation systems, only a subset of them possess large annotated corpora for named entity recognition. Motivated by this fact, we leverage machine translation to improve annotation-projection approaches to cross-lingual named entity recognition. We propose a system that improves over prior entity-projection methods by: (a) leveraging machine translation systems twice: first for translating sentences and subsequently for translating entities; (b) matching entities based on orthographic and phonetic similarity; and (c) identifying matches based on distributional statistics derived from the dataset. Our approach improves upon current state-of-the-art methods for cross-lingual named entity recognition on 5 diverse languages by an average of 4.1 points. Further, our method achieves state-of-the-art F_1 scores for Armenian, outperforming even a monolingual model trained on Armenian source data.

Several recent papers investigate Active Learning (AL) for mitigating the data dependence of deep learning for natural language processing. However, the applicability of AL to real-world problems remains an open question. While in supervised learning, practitioners can try many different methods, evaluating each against a validation set before selecting a model, AL affords no such luxury. Over the course of one AL run, an agent annotates its dataset exhausting its labeling budget. Thus, given a new task, we have no opportunity to compare models and acquisition functions. This paper provides a large-scale empirical study of deep active learning, addressing multiple tasks and, for each, multiple datasets, multiple models, and a full suite of acquisition functions. We find that across all settings, Bayesian active learning by disagreement, using uncertainty estimates provided either by Dropout or Bayes-by-Backprop significantly improves over i.i.d. baselines and usually outperforms classic uncertainty sampling.

Many recent papers address reading comprehension, where examples consist of (question, passage, answer) tuples. Presumably, a model must combine information from both questions and passages to predict corresponding answers. However, despite intense interest in the topic, with hundreds of published papers vying for leaderboard dominance, basic questions about the difficulty of many popular benchmarks remain unanswered. In this paper, we establish sensible baselines for the bAbI, SQuAD, CBT, CNN, and Who-did-What datasets, finding that question- and passage-only models often perform surprisingly well. On 14 out of 20 bAbI tasks, passage-only models achieve greater than 50% accuracy, sometimes matching the full model. Interestingly, while CBT provides 20-sentence passages, only the last is needed for accurate prediction. By comparison, SQuAD and CNN appear better-constructed.

Deep neural networks have advanced the state of the art in named entity recognition. However, under typical training procedures, advantages over classical methods emerge only with large datasets. As a result, deep learning is employed only when large public datasets or a large budget for manually labeling data is available. In this work, we show otherwise: by combining deep learning with active learning, we can outperform classical methods even with a significantly smaller amount of training data.

Traditional approaches to recommendation focus on learning from large volumes of historical feedback to estimate simple numerical quantities (Will a user click on a product? Make a purchase? etc.). Natural language approaches that model information like product reviews have proved to be incredibly useful in improving the performance of such methods, as reviews provide valuable auxiliary information that can be used to better estimate latent user preferences and item properties. In this paper, rather than using reviews as an inputs to a recommender system, we focus on generating reviews as the model’s output. This requires us to efficiently model text (at the character level) to capture the preferences of the user, the properties of the item being consumed, and the interaction between them (i.e., the user’s preference). We show that this can model can be used to (a) generate plausible reviews and estimate nuanced reactions; (b) provide personalized rankings of existing reviews; and (c) recommend existing products more effectively.